Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2020132394 to Sager et al. (cited by applicant) (using U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0023854 as an English equivalence) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0171750 to Gahleitner et al.
Sager teaches a pipette tip extension attachable to a pipette that includes: “a proximal end 2 and a distal end 3. An exterior wall 4 extends between the proximal end 2 and the distal end 3, and forms at the proximal end 2 a reception aperture 7 and forms at the distal end 3 a dispense aperture 8. The exterior wall 4, comprising an outer side 5 and an inner side 6, encloses an inner cavity 9.” ([0198], Figs. 1A-1D).
In Sager “The distance elements 10 are arranged on the inner side 6 of the exterior wall 4 and protrude into the inner cavity 9. The distance elements 10 thereby establish a fluid uptake area 11 which is adjacent to the inner side 6 of the exterior wall 4 and within the inner cavity 9. The dimensions of the distance elements 10 may in this embodiment have a direct influence onto the volume of the fluid uptake area 11.” [0202]
Sager does not teach that the pipette tip extension is made of a non-polar olefine based polypropylene (PP) composition comprising at least 85% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (h-PP), the latter comprising a propylene random copolymer matrix phase (r-PPM), an elastomeric propylene copolymer (e-PP) dispersed in the matrix, and optionally the PP composition may comprise polyethylene (PE) dispersed in the matrix, whereat the polypropylene composition has a shore hardness D from 45-60.
Gahleitner et al. teaches a polypropylene composition that can be used to make pipettes. [0202]
Gahleitner et al. teaches that heterophasic polypropylenes (HECOs) are well known in the art and appreciated for their good impact behavior. Such heterophasic propylene copolymers comprise a matrix being either a propylene homopolymer and/or a random propylene copolymer in which an elastomeric copolymer is dispersed. [0002]
Gahleitner et al. teaches polyethylene as an additive to heterophasic polypropylenes (HECOs). [0041]
Gahleitner et al. teaches that the total ethylene content of the heterophasic polypropylene is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 wt. %. [0091]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufactured the pipette tip extension of Sager et al. from a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer comprising a random propylene copolymer matrix in which an elastomeric copolymer is dispersed in view of Gahleitner et al. teaching such heterophasic polypropylene compositions are suitable for molding medical articles such as pipettes.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. do not teach that the comonomer content of the elastomeric propylene copolymer is equal or higher than the comonomer content of the propylene random copolymer matrix phase.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine the amount of polyethylene suitable to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including providing a comonomer content of the elastomeric propylene copolymer that is equal or higher than the comonomer content of the propylene random copolymer matrix phase.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. do not teach a shore hardness D from 45-60.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine the amount of polyethylene suitable to provide a desired shore hardness to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including a shore hardness D of 45-60.
I.) Regarding applicant’ claim 1, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. render all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that polypropylene composition has a melting temperature between 130-160°C and a melt flow rate (MFR, 230°C/2.16kg) according to ISO 1133 from 0.5-6.0 g/10 min.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the pipette tip extension of Sager et al. from a heterophasic polypropylene composition including up to 15 wt.% polyethylene and 85 wt.% polypropylene.
Since a heterophasic polypropylene composition including up to 15 wt.% polyethylene and 85 wt.% polypropylene falls within applicant’s disclosed heterophasic polypropylene composition, the melting temperature and melt flow rate of the heterophasic polypropylene of Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. both be within the ranges recited in claim 2.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (h-PP) comprises at least 65 to 90 wt.% of the propylene random copolymer matrix phase (r-PPM), whereat the comonomer of the r-PPM is ethylene and/or C4 to C12 olefins, and the h-PP comprises 15 to 35 wt.% of a dispersed phase comprising an elastomeric propylene copolymer (e-PP) having ethylene and/or C4 to C12 olefins as comonomers.
As noted above, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine the amount of polyethylene suitable to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including up to 15 wt.% polyethylene and 85 wt.% polypropylene, with the polyethylene being dispersed in the Polypropylene matrix.
Therefore Sager et al, in view of Gahleitner et al, renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites the r-PPM has ethylene as comonomer and/or the e-PP has ethylene as comonomer.
Gahleitner et al. teaches the use of ethylene and comonomers of alpha olefins. [0029]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 4 obvious from which 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the ethylene comonomer content of the r-PPM is 3 to 20 wt.% with reference to the r-PPM.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. does not teach that the ethylene comonomer contact of the r-PPM is 3 to 20 wt.% with reference to the r-PPM.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine an amount of ethylene comonomer suitable to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including 3 to 20 wt.% with reference to the r-PPM.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 4 obvious from which 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the ethylene comonomer content of the e-PP is 20 to 40 wt.% with reference to the e-PP.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. does not teach that the ethylene comonomer contact of the r-PPM is 20 to 40 wt.% with reference to the r-PPM.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine an amount of ethylene comonomer suitable to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including 20 to 40 wt.% with reference to the r-PPM.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the content of the PE dispersed in the matrix phase is equal or less than 15 wt.% of the composition.
As noted above, Gahleitner et al. teaches that the total ethylene content of the heterophasic polypropylene is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 wt. %.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
VIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the composition further comprising a polymeric a-nucleating agent in a range of 0.0001 to 5 wt.% of the composition.
Gahleitner et al. teaches that an alpha nucleating agent can be added in an amount of 0.0 to 1.0 wt.%. [0166]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites further comprising a constriction element (12) to control an insertion depth of a pipette tip (20) within the pipette tip extension (1), the constriction element defining a gap height between a distal end of an inserted pipette tip and the distal end of the pipette tip extension.
In Fig. 2B of Sager et al. teaches a constriction (12) to control an insertion depth of a pipette tip within the pipette tip extension, the constriction element defining a gap height between a distal end of an inserted pipette tip and the distal end of the pipette tip extension.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
X.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that the constriction element being configured as a fluid-permeable sieve-like structure, wherein the constriction element (12) comprises a guiding plate (14), support bars (15) and a connection channel (16), wherein the guiding plate (14) defines or is connected to an end stop (23) for a pipette tip (20), the guiding plate (14) being connected to an inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4) by the support bars 15 close to but offset of a distal end (3) of the pipette tip extension (1), delimiting together with the inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4) a gap (17) of a gap height (h) at the distal end (3) of the pipette tip extension (1), the support bars (15) providing one or more passages for fluidly connecting the gap (17) with the fluid uptake area (11) .
Sager et al. teaches a fluid-permeable sieve-like structure, wherein the constriction element comprises a guiding plate, support bars and a connection channel, wherein the guiding plate defines or is connected to an end stop for a pipette tip, the guiding plate being connected to an inner side of the exterior wall by the support bars close to but offset of a distal end of the pipette tip extension, delimiting together with the inner side of the exterior wall a gap of a gap height at the distal end of the pipette tip extension, the support bars providing one or more passages for fluidly connecting the gap with the fluid uptake area. ([0206], Fig. 4A)
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
XI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites that the distance element(s)(10) or the constriction element is or forms a sleeve (21) which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip (20) within the inner cavity (9), wherein the sleeve (21) is adapted to the shape of a distal end of a pipette tip (20) in a liquid-tight manner.
Sager et al. teaches that the distance element(s) or the constriction element is or forms a sleeve which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip within the inner cavity, wherein the sleeve is adapted to the shape of a distal end of a pipette tip in a liquid-tight manner. [0211]
Therefore Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
XII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites at least two, preferably at least three additional distance elements (10), each distance element (10) being configured as a distance bar (24) which extends along a direction from the proximal end (2) towards the distal end (3) of the pipette tip extension (1), wherein the form of the distance bars and the position of the distance bars are configured such that each distance bar (24) can be abutted by an outer side of a pipette tip (20) when inserted into the pipette tip extension (1).
Sager et al. teaches three additional distance elements, each distance element being configured as a distance bar which extends along a direction from the proximal end towards the distal end of the pipette tip extension, wherein the form of the distance bars and the position of the distance bars are configured such that each distance bar can be abutted by an outer side of a pipette tip when inserted into the pipette tip extension. ([0212].
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
XIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the distance element(s) (10) is connected to the inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4), and the constriction element (12) is connected to the inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4) of the pipette tip extension (1), thereby defining an end stop (23) for a pipette tip (20), and being configured as a fluid-permeable sieve-like structure.
Sager et al. teaches that the distance element(s) is connected to the inner side of the exterior wall, and the constriction element is connected to the inner side of the exterior wall of the pipette tip extension, thereby defining an end stop for a pipette tip, and being configured as a fluid-permeable sieve-like structure. [0202], [0210]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
XIV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the distance element (10) is configured as a sleeve (21) for receiving and circumferentially enclosing a distal end of a pipette tip (2), the sleeve (21) being open at the distal end for allowing a liquid being dispensed from an inserted pipette tip (20) into the gap (17), and wherein the end stop (23) is configured as an elongated, tubular hollow cylinder which provides a passage for fluidly connecting an inserted pipette tip (20) with the gap (17), wherein the sleeve (21) and the end stop (23) are fluidly connected to provide the fluid connection between the pipette tip (20) and the gap (17).
Sager et al. teaches that the distance element is configured as a sleeve for receiving and circumferentially enclosing a distal end of a pipette tip, the sleeve being open at the distal end for allowing a liquid being dispensed from an inserted pipette tip into the gap, and wherein the end stop is configured as an elongated, tubular hollow cylinder which provides a passage for fluidly connecting an inserted pipette tip with the gap, wherein the sleeve and the end stop are fluidly connected to provide the fluid connection between the pipette tip and the gap. [0206], [0219]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
XV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 15, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 15 depends.
Claim 15 recites that the guiding plate (14) is configured as a ring-like guiding plate (14) or as a shim-like guiding plate (14) or as a plate-like guiding plate (14).
Sager et al. teach that the guiding plate is configured as a ring-like guiding plate or as a shim-like guiding plate or as a plate-like guiding plate. [0204]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 15 obvious.
XVI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 16, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites that the one or more support bars (15) connecting the guiding plate to the inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4), or a connection element (28) connecting the inner wall to the sleeve have a cut out section (29) provided to extend the height (h) of the gap immediately adjacent to the inner side (6) of the exterior wall (4).
As shown in Figs. 4A and 4B of Sager et al. a connection element (portion of 24) connecting the inner wall to the sleeve has a cut out or recessed section at the bottom that extends the height of the gap immediately adjacent to the inner side of the exterior wall.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 16 obvious.
XVII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 17, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 17 depends.
Claim 17 recites the pipette tip extension is produced by injection molding of the respective polypropylene composition.
Gahleitner et al. teaches injection molding.
It would have been obvious to produce the pipette tip extension of Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. by injection molding as taught by Gahleitner et al.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 17 obvious.
XVIII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 18, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 18 depends.
Claim 18 recites that the parting line of at least two mold parts used to produce the pipette tip extension is shifted into the dispense aperture or into the connection channel.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. does not teach that that the parting line of at least two mold parts used to produce the pipette tip extension is shifted into the dispense aperture or into the connection channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mold the pipette tip extension of Sager et al, in view of Gahleitner et al. shown in Figs. 4B or 6 in two parts and arrange a parting line into the dispense aperture of into the connection channel, as a matter of mold design choice.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view Gahleitner et al.
XIX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 19, as noted above Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 19 depends.
Claim 19 recites the PP composition comprises polyethylene (PE) dispersed in the matrix phase.
Gahleitner et al. teaches polyethylene and that heterophasic propylene copolymers comprise a matrix. [0001], [0002]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 19 obvious.
XX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 20, as noted above Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 9 obvious from which claim 20 depends.
Claim 20 recites that the constriction element is or forms a sleeve which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip within the inner cavity, wherein the sleeve is adapted to the shape of a distal end of a pipette tip in a liquid-tight manner.
Sager et al. teaches that “the distance element is a sleeve which is configured to receive and circumferentially enclose a distal end of a pipette tip within the inner cavity, without restricting a fluid passage between an inserted pipette tip and the gap.” [0026].
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 20 obvious.
XXI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 21, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 21 depends.
Claim 21 recites that the r-PPM has ethylene as comonomer and/or the e-PP has ethylene as comonomer.
Gahleitner et al. teaches that elastomeric propylene-ethylene copolymer can be dispersed in the matrix which is a copolymer of propylene and ethylene. [0058]
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 21 obvious.
XXII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 22, as noted above. Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which 22 depends.
Claim 22 recites that a content of the comonomer of the r-PPM is 3 to 20 wt-% with reference to the r-PPM, and wherein a content of the comonomer of the e-PP is 20 to 40 wt-% with reference to the e-PP.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. does not teach that a content of the comonomer of the r-PPM is 3 to 20 wt-% with reference to the r-PPM, and wherein a content of the comonomer of the e-PP is 20 to 40 wt-% with reference to the e-PP.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine suitable ratio of the random propylene copolymer to the elastomeric propylene copolymer to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including providing 3 to 20 wt.% of the random propylene copolymer and 20 to 40 wt.% of the elastomeric propylene copolymer.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 22 obvious.
2. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al.
As noted above, Sager teaches a pipette tip extension attachable to a pipette that includes: “a proximal end 2 and a distal end 3. An exterior wall 4 extends between the proximal end 2 and the distal end 3, and forms at the proximal end 2 a reception aperture 7 and forms at the distal end 3 a dispense aperture 8. The exterior wall 4, comprising an outer side 5 and an inner side 6, encloses an inner cavity 9.” ([0198], Figs. 1A-1D).
In Sager “The distance elements 10 are arranged on the inner side 6 of the exterior wall 4 and protrude into the inner cavity 9. The distance elements 10 thereby establish a fluid uptake area 11 which is adjacent to the inner side 6 of the exterior wall 4 and within the inner cavity 9. The dimensions of the distance elements 10 may in this embodiment have a direct influence onto the volume of the fluid uptake area 11.” [0202]
Sager et al. teaches a distal element that is a sleeve and that connecting elements may connect the sleeve to the inner wall. [0026], [0072].
As shown in Figs. 4A and 4B of Sager et al. the connection element (portion of 24) connecting the inner wall to the sleeve has a cut out or recessed section at the bottom that extends the height of the gap immediately adjacent to the inner side of the exterior wall.
Sager does not teach that the pipette tip extension is made of a non-polar olefine based polypropylene (PP) composition comprising at least 85% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (h-PP), the latter comprising a propylene random copolymer matrix phase (r-PPM), an elastomeric propylene copolymer (e-PP) dispersed in the matrix, and optionally the PP composition may comprise polyethylene (PE) dispersed in the matrix, whereat the polypropylene composition has a shore hardness D from 45-60.
Gahleitner et al. teaches a polypropylene composition that can be used to make pipettes. [0202]
Gahleitner et al. teaches that heterophasic polypropylenes (HECOs) are well known in the art and appreciated for their good impact behavior. Such heterophasic propylene copolymers comprise a matrix being either a propylene homopolymer and/or a random propylene copolymer in which an elastomeric copolymer is dispersed. [0002]
Gahleitner et al. teaches polyethylene as an additive to heterophasic polypropylenes (HECOs). [0041]
Gahleitner et al. teaches that the total ethylene content of the heterophasic polypropylene is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 wt. %. [0091]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to manufactured the pipette tip extension of Sager et al. from a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer to have a polypropylene matrix with polyethylene dispersed in the matrix in view of Gahleitner et al. teaching such heterophasic polypropylene compositions are suitable for molding medical articles such as pipettes.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine optimization experimentation to determine the amount of polyethylene suitable to provide a desired elasticity to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including at least 85 wt.% of a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer, the heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (h-PP) comprising a propylene random copolymer matrix phase, and an elastomeric propylene copolymer dispersed in the matrix phase, wherein the polypropylene composition.
Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. do not teach a shore hardness D from 45-60.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine the amount of polyethylene suitable to provide a desired shore hardness to the heterophasic polypropylene composition, including a shore hardness D of 45-60.
I.) Regarding applicant’ claim 23, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. render all the elements of claim 23.
Therefore, Sager et al. in view of Gahleitner et al. renders claim 23 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gahleitner et al. does not teach a propylene random copolymer matrix phase.
As noted above, Gahleitner et al. teaches heterophasic propylene copolymers that comprise a matrix being either a propylene homopolymer and/or a random propylene copolymer in which an elastomeric copolymer is dispersed. [0002].
Applicant argues that the previous Office Action does not explain why a skilled artisan would have selected Gahleitner's composition for Sager's device.
As noted, Gahleitner et al. teaches that the disclosed compositions are suitable for medical or diagnostic purposes, such as syringes, beakers, titre plates, pipettes, etc., which would lead one skilled in the art to consider making the pipette tip extensions of Sager et al. from the compositions of Gahleitner et al.
Applicant argues that the structural and fluidic demands of Sager et al. do not demonstrate that the compositions of Gahleitner et al. are suitable.
One skilled in the art would be lead to use the compositions of Gahleitner et al. based on Gahleitner et al. teaching making pipette and thereafter realize their suitability inasmuch as Sager et al. teaches structural elements that read on applicant’s tip extensions.
Applicant argues that the examiner has not cited any teaching in Gahleitner disclosing those phase-specific ranges related to optimizing the content of the propylene random copolymer matrix phase and the elastomeric propylene copolymer.
One skilled in the art conducting routine engineering optimization experimentation would test the function of the pipette tip extension that applicant argues when conducting optimization.
While applicant argues that structural and fluidic demands of Sager et al.'s device structure do not support making the pipette tip extension of Sager et al. from the compositions of Gahleitner et al., applicant has not demonstrated adverse effects of the structural or fluid demands of Sager et al. would result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights